I am in favor of relaxations in this area. I realize that new code would
be needed in the submissions tool, but I don't think it would be too
hard either. We already treat expirations differently depending on the
tracker state. I have not looked at the submission tool code, but I
would be surprised if it cannot access drafts database and tracker contents.
I currently have several drafts in a state where the IESG, authors, and
the WG are talking about the changes needed to approve the document. In
one case we have a very long list of RFC Editor notes that appear
satisfactory. In theory we could approve the draft with those, but I
would like to use RFC Editor notes for minor corrections, and this one
is not... so a new draft would be preferred. Yet it cannot be posted at
this time. Having the new draft would also make it easier to have a
discussion with the WG, because then the usual tools diffs etc would be
available.
So, my suggestion would be to add a change to our long list of tool
development tasks. In its simplest form, submissions should be allowed
even after the deadline has passed if tracker state > pubrequest. Other,
more complex policies might also be possible, but they would need more
discussion. For instance, chair decision, allowing updates of drafts
that have already been updated shortly before, etc.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf